User talk:MZMcBride: Difference between revisions

Archives
May 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – May 2007

You can see the content of this deleted article. If it meets the CSD criteria, can you at least undelete it into my userspace - I was at a public computer when I wrote it. The way, the truth, and the light 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we both added {{Non-free media}} here, except that I placed it in an includeonly tag and you placed it in a noinclude tag (both are there at the moment). I think the includeonly is correct, because the point in the template is that its what-links-here gives a list of non-free media. (I forgot to disable the editprotected; sorry about that!). Which of the transclusions should remain in? --ais523 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The template itself has no content; it's used to create a list of non-free media in its what-links-here, and so I think the includeonly is correct. As you seem not to mind, I'll revert that part of your edit. --ais523 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The user recreated this article you speedied almost immediately. I'm sending you this note in case you want to delete it again. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and your question on it here

See here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers back! -- Ping here. Sorry 'bout that! // FrankB 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One has to wonder how many links labeled 'here' are on Wikipedia talk pages! Yikes we're either an unimaginative lot, or the word is a contender with "If" for high utility champion! <BSEG> -- FAB

Editor, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status.--Loodog 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA page is here. Any feedback and assistance you have to offer would be greatly appreciated.--Loodog 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unusual requests was deleted on May 30. I tagged the redirect as a candidate for deletion under CSD R1 on May 31 and it was deleted the same day. An admin restored both the target page and the redirect on June 5, but apparently forgot to remove my speedy tag. See target log redirect log. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you get the idea that discussion must happen? Do you actually disagree with them, or are you reverting purely on that "discussion required" principal? The latter is not a valid reason for a revert. If you do find them to be worthy, please show some sources. TTN 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nobody to discuss with, a consensus cannot be formed. Someone that disagrees with the episodes themselves being removed should revert them, not you. There is a pretty good chance that nobody will openly disagree in the least, thus forming a silent consensus of sorts. You're also using the phrase "good information", which isn't very pleasing. Good information is sourced, out of universe information, not huge plot summaries and trivia.

And then reverting just because there is another discussion going on isn't good. We have to do these series by series. As shown by the "report", there seems to be little doubt in redirecting most episodes. People are just a little angry at my method. So I ask that you let me revert these unless you can provide real sources. TTN 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just forcing discussion where none needs to occur. To pretend to garner attention is worse to me than not mentioning it at all. These will be redirected in the end. Either someone will push that they can be improved, but never show it, thus halting it until he/she gives up or nothing will happen and they'll be redirected. I get the point of open discussion, but when it isn't needed here. Plus, what is the difference between "a page being redirected and never touched or being reverted and forcing a discussion" and "starting a discussion that is never replied to or having the discussion happen"? They're exactly the same thing. TTN 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, forcing discussion is pointless. We can either live in a fantasy world where people always get to voice their opinions or just accept that it isn't going to happen. If this was a low scale thing, I could understand going about it in the "normal" way, but waiting for each thing to be discussed is pointless and silly. Are the non-bold articles here any better off because they have had the chance for discussion? And just so I know, this is a one time thing right? I hope you don't plan on stalking me or anything. I'm certainly not going to be changing my ways back to the pointless method in my sand box again. TTN 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, as long as you're not going to bother me on others, I guess it doesn't matter. TTN 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is five days good enough for you? TTN 02:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my page on Fuzzy Bumpkins deleted?

If it just requires a sub tag why not just add it instead of deleting the content??

Following unprotection, which I understand was done in good faith, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has apparently taken no heed to WP sourcing or consensus policy and has effectively resumed edit warring on the article. Gwen Gale 13:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed the protection tag on List of billionaires (2007) when it expired. Unfortunately, there have been over 20 edits since then and most appear to be vandalism. I'm not familiar with the procedures for protecting an article but maybe it needs it again? --Georgeryp 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Userful. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 64.178.96.168 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello by the time I got your message User nick mallory had already written up the article in question to a good level. Also is it not okay to create an article and then for someone to write it up the next day because I do not see the issue of what I am doing. The article has a sentance and also an infobox surely it can be kep as an article for 24 to 48 hrs while it is being written up 02blythed 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the perfectly legitimate cricketer articles created by 02blythed. First class cricketers are notable under wikipedia policy and precedent and the articles clearly state that the man in question was a first class cricketer and his statistics are given in the correct user box with a reliable source. I am creating the articles alongside 02blythed and if you check on them you'll see they're having more prose added as we go along. If you have any problem with this take it up with the Wikiproject cricket page. Deleting articles which are perfectly proper can start to border on unpleasant. If you want to add the articles to your watchlist and look on them a day or two later then fine, if you want to tag them as stubs or whatever then fine. Deleting them is not the right course of action however. Perhaps you should seek the advice of other admins before taking such action in future? I am at least the third person to tell you that these articles are fine. Nick mallory 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From now on to avoid the articles I create being put forward for deletion I will mark each article with the tag you suggested. Thanks. 02blythed 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The temporary sandbox you put up for testing out a new page format that includes the EU in a sublist. This seemed to be the one that everyone could agree on, however grudgingly. When you have time, please take a look at [[1]]. Malnova 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Again, the temporary sandbox has the version you asked us to try out. Also, everyone who weighed in has either endorsed, agreed to try out, or grudgingly acknowledged it. This version is also the obtaining version on the similar List of countries by population article and has been for some time, after similar negotiations were held there. Could I ask you to chime in, and ask for an up/down from concerned editors about trying out this version? I don't think things will move forward without another post from someone outside the debate. Thanks. Malnova 00:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very fond of your recent change to this template due to what it does to the {{pp-dispute}} template (and I believe other full protection templates as well). Unlike some of the other protection templates, {{pp-dispute}} has additional text between the bolded text and the {{howtoedit}} text. Thus, it does not look very good. (Before you say this: yes, I do realize you responded to an {{editprotected}} request). -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the extra text in {{pp-dispute}} when I made the change, however, it didn't really bother me. If you really don't like the break, feel free to remove it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change instead. I'm not really fond of the line breaks anywhere, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out today that you blocked me yesterday after a computer cliche on my blackberry that was in no way intended to be vandalism and i find it odd that an admin would block someone who only made one so called vandalist act and was already warned by another user. Next time i would reccommend not jumping the gun as I have made many edits to Michael Mullen's article even before he got media attention.--Joebengo 04:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I'm totally confused as to why Manchurian candidate did that to my page, and I didn't even realize that he was the user that warned me untill I read the history, obviously a n00b who doesn't know what he is doing.--Joebengo 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Wikipedia on squashing original research. I mean, Hi-Five. If I was Stephen Hawking you'd post my theories CosmicBowler 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not delete the page (The most ethical administration in American history) so why are you writing about it on my user page? You Deleted Coffeegate (CNN and NY Times Ref). Do you delete so many pages that you do not like that you do not remember what you delete? I don't appreciate you deleting pages without putting the hold on warning on the users page.Telecine Guy 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) And yes I put this at the top, since you wrote on my page about a page you did not delete. You just wrote about someone else note! The page you wrote about had the hold on warning, so I am not sure why you wrote about.Telecine Guy 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:03, 2 June 2007, put the note on my page? There was no attack in coffeegate it was well ref to CNN and NY Times. Deletion tags are to have a warning tags put on the makers users talk page. Others can remove the deletion tag but not the user that made the page. You put no note on my user page till I put notes on yours. Telecine Guy 03:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what's to be done with pages like User:Andrew_dohman? Letting it stay after his vandalism seems unreasonable. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, another admin disagreed with you, as it was deleted as nonsense. Can you tell me what the policy is regarding such user pages? --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your thoughtful response! (It's on my talk page, for eavesdroppers.) --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification here. You seem to be making the rounds of protected edit requests. I'm as well, and I thought this one would be particularly appropriate for your skill set. Just in case you hadn't already seen it anyway. Cheers!--Chaser - T 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I took care of it (and a couple of others). Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Thanks for the tip. I'm checking all the changes manually, but templates don't usually care about specific strings so I didn't notice that requirement. Now I know to look out for SCOTUS. — brighterorange (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I deleted like 30 of them.Stellatomailing 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what use you have in mind for the numbered parameter you added to the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback - I had looked around for a place to drop a question for the wiki-wizards but had not seen Wikipedia:Help_desk... You had written "It seems the image you uploaded was deleted because it didn't have a fair-use rationale." Where did you see that it did not have a fair-use rationale? I'm just curious on if there's an archived discussion. Note, I'm not the one that had upload the image and while I had looked at the image page once it would have been a couple of years ago. I suppose I could look at the history for the pages that referenced the image to see who added the link and assume that person uploaded it. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the second reply as I was just about to hunt down when the image was added and by who. I put up a substitute image with rational that hopefully will past muster and deleted the reference to the original (deleted) image from that other page that used it. BTW, when discussing things with wiki-wizards do you prefer that the discussion ping-pong between user-talk pages or do you monitor your watch-list for possible replies? Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect the article Telugu language. My edits with proper citations are being reverted without giving any reasons by Gnanapiti. Kumarrao 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - it seems that the article Prostitution has been protected for over a month. I'm not actually sure that you protected it, but it seems you may have. What is the rationale for such a long protection? Best regards 195.137.96.79 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok - thanks for that information. I wasn't aware of the protection log feature. I must have misinterpreted the article history. Thanks, and best regards. 195.137.96.79 04:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator,

I made a couple of edits in Chalukya dynasty. Within a period of one hour three users simultaneously pounced on me. One reverted my edits without discussion. The other made false allegations that I am in touch with some banned user. The third threatened to block me. Is it not a clear evidence of collusion? Is there any way out in Wiki to this madness? Kumarrao 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I wasn't sufficiently concise with the editprotected request. The Rednex page has been fully protected in the midst of an edit war, and the present version violates WP:NPOV on grounds that it only references sources complying with one side of the dispute. The specific request is to revert the page back to this version, since it acknowledges the ongoing dispute without committing itself to any prejudice on whether Brian Reddyb is a hoax. CounterFX 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above revert request. The protected tag on the Rednex page quite clearly states that 'protection is not an endorsement of the current version'. If a reversion needs to be made at all I suggest that is made to one in which there are no citations regarding any of the said producers. As I stated on the talk page, the revision CounterFX refers presents, in my opinion, an aura of suspicion surrounding the input of Brian Reddyb into the Rednex project. I have no idea who CounterFX is, although I have a great deal of suspicion about his motives. The ferocity with which he seeks to exclude my part in the formation of the band is interesting. Even after having provided several references (which was difficult enough given that my part in the band development was early and abrupt) it appears that CounterFX is still not happy. Once again, I reiterate, questionable motives. Kind regards, Brian Reddyb 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]